Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Sex? Biologists Find New Explanations

quantamagazine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 102 posts

Re: Why Sex? Biologists Find New Explanations

#31

Post by Spooky23 »

globular-toast wrote: post #4

The author fails to mention what is probably the largest downside to sex: an entire half of the population is completely unable to reproduce. The question "why do we have sex?" could be restated as "why do males exist?" Unfortunately the answers to that question trouble some people so it's difficult to establish the truth. The simple answer comes down to the fact that a species has to find a balance between maintaini…

I get what you're saying, but I think facts suggest that this isn't downside with significant impact. Populations seem to grow just fine in all sexually reproducing species as long as conditions are ok.

Even some of the poorest countries have very high fertility rates, as high as 6-7 births per female, so availability of women is not an issue.

Re: Why Sex? Biologists Find New Explanations

#33

Post by ARandomerDude »

itchyjunk wrote: post #20

I like how the article starts but I think it got lost a bit in hypothetical and anecdotes towards the end. Not holding it against the article though. As the article rightly points out, anything involving sex drags in biases as well. I wonder how convergent evolution [0] fits into this? Maybe one form of reproduction leaves a large niche open for another type of reproduction to fill in. Could it be that there was sexu…

The problem is you need two complete sets of reproductive organs simultaneously. If either the male or female has a single defective organ, nothing works.

Re: Why Sex? Biologists Find New Explanations

#35

Post by Zaak »

itchyjunk wrote: post #20

I like how the article starts but I think it got lost a bit in hypothetical and anecdotes towards the end. Not holding it against the article though. As the article rightly points out, anything involving sex drags in biases as well. I wonder how convergent evolution [0] fits into this? Maybe one form of reproduction leaves a large niche open for another type of reproduction to fill in. Could it be that there was sexu…

> is meiosis and mitosis the only two way to reproduce?

Well, from a high-level view the only way a cell can make more cells is to divide, and if it divides it either makes a copy of its genetic material first, or gives half of it to each daughter cell. So in that sense, they're the only two ways possible.

From a more detailed view, I wonder if the machinery of meiosis is evolutionarily the same in every sexually-reproducing species, or if it has evolved more than once. My guess is only once, because it has a specific sequence of events which is always the same.

Re: Why Sex? Biologists Find New Explanations

#36

Post by hammock »

Zaak wrote: post #35
itchyjunk wrote: post #20

I like how the article starts but I think it got lost a bit in hypothetical and anecdotes towards the end. Not holding it against the article though. As the article rightly points out, anything involving sex drags in biases as well. I wonder how convergent evolution [0] fits into this? Maybe one form of reproduction leaves a large niche open for another type of reproduction to fill in. Could it be that there was sexu…

> is meiosis and mitosis the only two way to reproduce? Well, from a high-level view the only way a cell can make more cells is to divide, and if it divides it either makes a copy of its genetic material first, or gives half of it to each daughter cell. So in that sense, they're the only two ways possible. From a more detailed view, I wonder if the machinery of meiosis is evolutionarily the same in every sexually-rep…

>Well, from a high-level view the only way a cell can make more cells is to divide, and if it divides it either makes a copy of its genetic material first, or gives half of it to each daughter cell. So in that sense, they're the only two ways possible.

Ignoring the idea of three-way (or more) genetic swaps, which would be like another type of meiosis, what if there were other ways?

What if there was a "carbon copy" or "embossing" technique where a cell bumps it's genes up against other's genes, and through some process yet to be determined , the other's genes are "nudged" into conforming to the shape of the cell's bumping it?

Sort of like picking a lock.. you bump up against each cylinder enough times until it falls into the shape you want it to. No splitting of chromosomes, or transfer of actual genetic material needed.

Of course this is a pipe dream but I'm just imagining here.

Re: Why Sex? Biologists Find New Explanations

#37

Post by SkyBelow »

rsynnott wrote: post #19
swebs wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis#Modern_...

> In general, most researchers have failed to find greater variability in either sex in any area that is consistent across cultures and not confounded by social factors.

So it is saying we haven't been able to isolate the extent of the social impact. But this applies to so many things. Do we have research that shows that most people are heterosexual that is consistent across culture and not confounded by social factors? No, we don't. There have historically been cultures where the view on sexuality, what constitutes sex, and how sex is viewed are so different than we cannot say that our current split of people's orientation is based only on biology.

But, this sort of disclaimer is not being equally applied because it would apply all psychology and sociology research. We have a few examples of research that shows just how extreme the social impact can be, but we don't understand impact enough to account for it.

Is it good science if the standards research are held to are not consistent depending upon the topic?

Re: Why Sex? Biologists Find New Explanations

#38

Post by throwaway6575 »

jedimastert wrote: post #16

These comments make me sad. I thought the HN community was better than this.

HN is notoriously bad at anything related to biology, evolution, and genetics. It's a combination of this (https://xkcd.com/1831/) and this (https://xkcd.com/793/) comic. People there are also fond of finding a bunch of psychology papers that confirms existing biases.

There's also a misleading phenomenon where many of the fields whose "experts" chime in on these questions are called evolutionary psychology or behavioral genetics, making you think that these fields are related to biology and enjoy the same methodological standards of rigor as well as the same consensus from biologists. In reality these fields approach the questions from psychology, and that one field is known for having a bunch of practices, biases and motivated reasoning that'd make many a biologist reluctant to touch it with a ten feet pole.

It's very elegant to see the sleight of hand in action: someone makes a claim about sex, arguing it's a biological reality, and when challenged backs up their claim with a psych paper from a field that disguises as one from biologists and pretends that his claim enjoys a widespread consensus among actual scientists (as opposed to just psychologists). Hence, the claim isn't ideologically motivated, it's just science. Beautiful

Re: Why Sex? Biologists Find New Explanations

#40

Post by vikramkr »

throwaway6575 wrote: post #38
jedimastert wrote: post #16

These comments make me sad. I thought the HN community was better than this.

HN is notoriously bad at anything related to biology, evolution, and genetics. It's a combination of this ( https://xkcd.com/1831/ ) and this ( https://xkcd.com/793/ ) comic. People there are also fond of finding a bunch of psychology papers that confirms existing biases. There's also a misleading phenomenon where many of the fields whose "experts" chime in on these questions are called evolutionary psychology or beh…

There are at least a few of us on here that are actual biologists- and with the increasing overlap of biotech and hacking, maybe we'll see more of us on here soon? Especially with how much HN seems to enjoy bio related threads, it's nice to see people at least engaging with the subject. And it looks like with time some of the poorer faith comments do get buried, however plentiful they may be.
Post reply on HN